Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!samsung!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!unixhub!stanford.edu!eos!aio!aio.jsc.nasa.gov!grimm
From: grimm@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith A. Grimm)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Edwards as primary site
Message-ID: <1991May13.154314.21727@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: 13 May 91 15:43:14 GMT
References: <72189@microsoft.UUCP> <1991May12.182355.13384@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <32809@usc>
Sender: news@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (USENET News System)
Reply-To: ricks@berkeley.edu
Organization: UC Berkeley IC CAD Group
Lines: 16

In article <32809@usc>, sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes:
|> If Edwards then is the best landing site, why not use Vandenberg
|> is the space port?   Is it because of the obvious things:  no
|> port there, infrastructure in place at KSC,  no $$ savings,
|> launches would take place over land mass??
|> 
|> -- 
|> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|> Malcolm Sharp
|> Coordinator, Instructional/Technical Support
|> University of Southern California
We do not launch from Vandenberg because the launch pad there has a problem in that hydrogen can build up beneath the orbiter prior to launch and thus cause an explosion at engine firing.  It has been mothballed for the time being.

We land at Edwards because it allows for an extra margin of error.  At the time of 51L there was already some concern about the brakes.  If for some reason one failed and the other didn't the orbiter could go off the runway.  At Edwards that is not as big a problem as it is at Kennedy.  Off a runway at Edwards means onto the flat ground.  Off the runway at Kennedy means off into a swamp.  That why Kennedy is still only a backup landing site.

Also the weather is more stable at Edwards than at Kennedy.  No hurricanes or less other things to worry about.